Homelessness in Queensland mining communities: A down payment on Australia’s wealth or inevitable product of a neo-liberalist society’s response to the cyclical fortunes of mining

The mining boom in Australia of the first decade of the Twenty-First Century yielded prosperity for many Australians living in rural, regional and urban locations. This sense of prosperity was grounded in the widely reported experiences of people usually employed directly through the mining industry, or related industry, on high incomes, able to afford regular overseas holidays, ownership of multiple properties, material possessions and other hallmarks of an affluent lifestyle. However, less attention was given to vulnerable and homeless Australians in mining communities who did not benefit at all during the mining boom. In fact what evidence does exist indicates their disadvantage was further compounded through the high cost of housing. It is now widely accepted that the mining industry has been in a state of downturn over the last three years and this has served to highlight the social issues facing mining communities now and into the future. What is to be learnt from the decade long mining boom? Specifically this paper critiques the evidence, research literature and theories about urban-centric homelessness and assesses their relevance to homelessness in mining communities. This paper argues that the dynamics of homelessness in mining communities challenge existing homelessness theory and knowledge and argues that further evidence is needed to properly understand structural causes of homelessness in mining communities and to guide policy responses that may help prevent homelessness or otherwise assist homeless people access housing and support services. Identifying the mining boom and mining downturn cycle will be explored. Finally this paper outlines the case for further research to improve policy and planning responses to address homelessness in these communities taking into account planning requirements to address the mining boom and down turn cycle.


Introduction
Despite the best efforts of numerous scholars over the last 30 years, homelessness research has tended to focus mainly on the experiences of homeless people in large metropolitan cities. In particular narratives of inner city rough sleepers continue to dominate human interest stories in mainstream media. The academic and media focus on homeless people as almost exclusively rough sleepers in urban areas has reinforced the stereotype of homeless people as the older man or woman with alcohol problems sleeping in a public park or homeless young person involved in substance abuse, crime and prostitution in CBDs of capital cities. While these stereotypes continue to be grounded in the reality of many homeless people and highlight the extreme vulnerability of homeless people they also serve to limit a fuller understanding of the contexts in which people experience homelessness.
Homelessness has been constructed and defined in a number of ways and has also been considered in the context of specific demographic groups including young people, families, single adults and women and children who are homeless as a result of escaping domestic and family violence. The purpose of this paper is to critique existing theory of homelessness when applied to regional and rural mining communities. Further this paper explores the implications of the mining cycle, characterised by periods of economic boom and bust, on homelessness in communities which directly support the mining industry. The relative low profile given to homelessness in mining communities is situated within the dominant neo-liberalist paradigm which values immediate monetary and capital gain and individualism over and above structural responses to social and community issues.

The significance of the recent 2003-2012 mining boom in Australia
The mining and resources sector is central to debates about Australia's current and future economic and social prosperity (Edwards, 2014;Energy, 2007;MCA, 2011).
Mining has long had a strong profile in many of Australia's regional and rural areas.
The recent decade long mining boom in Australia is recognised as having begun in 2003 coinciding with a dramatic increase in the price of coal and other minerals such as iron ore on the world market. Coupled with a huge increase in the commodity price for these minerals was a commensurate huge increase in demand for these minerals from Australia from overseas and in particular China and India. This 10 year period became known as the mining boom. Regions including the North West Region of Queensland the Bowen Basin in Central Queensland rose to national and international attention as mining regions that were producing exceptional profits by mining companies which trickled down to well paid jobs in the mining sector which enabled an affluent lifestyle for many individuals and families employed through the mining industry. Discussion about opportunity was often framed about how individuals lucrative work in the mining sector which became part of the national psyche. Even during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, the mining communities faired reasonably well and in some cases experienced further economic prosperity at a time when many other parts of Australia and the world were experiencing economic hardship.
Debate first emerged in 2012 that in light of declining mining revenues and loss of mining industry jobs that the reality was the Mining Boom had actually ended (Fowler, 2012). While initial debate on this subject considered whether the 'downturn' was only a temporary adjustment to a different phase of mining activity, by 2014 the Australian Government acknowledged the end of the Mining Boom as a primary reason for decreased government revenue and justification for harsher Budget measures in 2014-15 (Hockey, 2014). The cyclical nature of mining booms has reignited the question of whether fiscal policy has been adequate during the boom times to ensure appropriate investment in Australia's future when boom periods inevitably end and to not any learnings from policy failures during these periods (Cleary, 2011). At a local level there are practical issues arising from this question about the health and wellbeing of rural and regional communities which support mining during these changes.
Many members of rural and regional communities see their future, indeed their survival as a community, as inextricably linked to future success of mining.
Simply stated, if there is no future in mining there is no future for the community.
Without the lure of well paying employment there is little to attract individuals and families to these communities. After a decade of considerable mining boom which transformed not only the lives of people engaged in mining employment but the very nature of mining communities, these communities are now faced with a series of complex questions about their medium and long term future. What are the full social impacts of mining boom? What relationship, if any, has the mining boom had on homelessness in mining communities? How do you prepare and plan at a community level for a future mining boom? What are the lessons to be learnt from the recent decade long mining boom? It is clear that mining communities in many instances have experienced and survived numerous periods of boom and bust throughout their history. Understanding the impact of this cycle on the community and in particular its more vulnerable citizens is a social planning and social and economic policy responsibility.
Literature review of homelessness in Australian regional and rural mining communities Other than Australian Bureau of Statistics Census counts and the work of a few researchers, homelessness research in non-urban contexts is not well established in literature. It is however an emerging focus of scholars and policy writers (Maidment & Bay, 2012). Homelessness research in rural communities and other countries shows a 'hidden homelessness' because people experiencing homelessness in these communities tend not to be visible rough sleepers as in large cities and these rural communities have fewer human services and resources available to support homeless people (Milbourne & Cloke, 2006). Indeed the common perception of rural communities as being 'idyllic' places for families, even inclusive communities where everyone knows each other and offers support to one another has detracted from understandings of homelessness in these communities (Cloke, Milbourne, & Widdowfield, 2002). These common perceptions of rural communities are often applied to mining communities throughout Australia. How could homelessness even exist in such an ideal and prosperous surroundings? Recent efforts by social researchers in Australia have begun the process of identifying and describing homelessness in Australia in a range of non-urban contexts and this paper continues this focus in considering the particular issues and dynamics that lead to homelessness in mining communities as well as the experience of homeless people in these communities. This paper critiques the existing homelessness knowledge base when applied to homelessness in mining communities.
This critique commences with an analysis of the major ways in which homelessness is defined and application of this definition to people experiencing homelessness in mining communities. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released a statistical definition of homelessness to inform Census counting activities in 2012. According to the statistical definition of homelessness, a person may be deemed homeless if the person is living in a dwelling that is inadequate, or the person has no tenure over the property, or the initial tenure is short and not extendable and does not allow the person to have control of, and access to space for social relations (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012d). This definition replaced the earlier Cultural definition of homelessness as the approach taken to inform Census counts including the 2011 Australian Census (Chamberlain & Mackenzie, 1992). The statistical definition of homelessness was formed as a response to some of the noted short comings of the cultural definition of homelessness and how Census activities were undertaken including the collection of Census data in regional and rural mining communities. One of the main limitations of definitions of homelessness is the exclusion of temporary workers living in makeshift accommodation or dongas through Fly In Fly Out (FIFO) or Drive in Drive Out (DIDO) arrangements. These workers who often spend more than 26 weeks of the years living as part mining communities or in neighbouring locations are still not counted as part of the Census data for the mining community as they are considered to have a permanent address somewhere else in Australia. There are also practical concerns raised about Census data undercounting the number of homeless people in rural communities because information is not available as to the person's current location and that there are too few Census staff able to check areas where homeless people may be residing. It is our view that these issues skew the quantitative data that Census counts provide in relation to homeless people in regional and rural mining communities.
Homelessness theory and knowledge is characterised by a number of key themes. These include access to housing; housing costs; pathways into homelessness and pathways out of homelessness and formal service system responses to homelessness (Chamberlain & Mackenzie, 2006;Johnson, Gronda, & Coutts, 2008). Collectively these inter-related bodies of knowledge contribute to our understanding of homelessness, its causes, consequences and societal responses.
This body of work is urban-centric and has many limitations when used as the basis to understand homelessness in regional and rural mining communities.
While the exact relationship between people experiencing homelessness and access to housing options is debated, the underlying premise that lack of affordable housing options increases social marginalisation and homelessness within communities is widely accepted amongst academics and social policy analysts (Fitzpatrick & Stephens, 2007;Rowley & Ong, 2012;Stephens, Fitzpatrick, Elsinga, van Steen, & Chzhen, 2010). This statement holds true across Australian cities and regions and in many overseas countries. Indeed inadequate affordable housing options for people has been a central issue for Australian mining communities during the mining boom where there was simply not enough social or private housing options available for community members. This was also the case for people Haslam-Mackenzie, Phillips, Rowley, Brereton and Birdsall-Jones (2009) identified the pressures that this swelling in population of mining communities had on Australian mining communities and how this trend decreased housing affordability and increased housing stress in these communities. This study also highlighted the trend of FIFO and DIDO workforce which tended to exacerbate these issues by virtue of increasing demand for housing. Additional pressures were created as a result of mining companies offering housing subsidies to staff which served to inflate housing prices in these communities. Community members and others seeking affordable housing were a clear loser during the height of the mining boom. Although there has been an improvement in housing affordability in mining communities since the end of the mining boom in 2012, access to affordable housing continues to be a major issue for these communities and one which needs to be recognised as a structural issue causing homelessness in these communities.
Explanations of homelessness based solely on housing supply and affordability arguments in regional and rural mining communities are limited and do not convey the complete picture of structural issues that cause homelessness in these communities. Chamberlain and Mackenzie (2006) developed a 'homeless careers' framework which considered the specific phases of experience leading to homelessness and these were considered in detail for people experiencing homelessness through family breakdown, housing crisis and youth homelessness.
This career framework was developed further by Johnson, Gronda and Coutts (2008) who identified five specific 'pathways into homelessness', these being housing crisis, domestic violence, youth, mental health and substance abuse. This approach has been useful in understanding how different people come to experience homelessness in their lives. It follows that for each pathway into homelessness a different set of responses is required to assist people to obtain housing and support services which will end their experience of homelessness. While this approach is useful in understanding homelessness and helps to identify service delivery responses to different people experiencing homelessness, the approach does not seem to take into account the social issues, community factors and dynamics that are particular to mining communities. These social issues , community factors and dynamics include the culture of mining communities especially the dominant ethos of masculinity, the changing pattern of employment and working conditions for people employed by the mining industry and the impact on relationships and families, sense of social and geographic isolation, the rise in substance abuse, the prevalence of male on male violence and domestic violence, the huge demand for health and welfare services to the point that much of the need for these service goes unmet, to name only a few. Carrington and colleagues (Carrington, Hogg, & McIntosh, 2011) have described some of these social issues and dynamics as the 'underbelly of mining communities'. More work is required to unpack, critique and to develop the pathways approach to understanding homelessness in mining communities as well as people's pathways out of homelessness in these communities.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander homelessness is also not well profiled in research on Australian mining communities. This is peculiar given so many mining communities have been established in regions with traditional land owners.
Research on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander homelessness has increased over the last decade (Memmott, Long, Chamber, & Spring, 2003;Parsell, 2011) however it has tended to avoid any explicit focus connect to regional and rural mining communities. The focus has tended to be on good service delivery responses to  Source: (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012aStatistics, , 2012bStatistics, 2012c) The We also know that for a variety of reasons, this data is more than likely to have been a conservative estimate of homeless people on Census night given what we acknowledge are the inherent difficulties locating homeless people during census counting periods and potential undercounting of people in rural and remote areas and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Chamberlain & Mackenzie, 2009).
The methodological issues associated with Census homelessness data and the reliability of this data for mining communities has been a long standing concern hence why the ABS are at pains to point out the data is only an estimate. If we are to improve service delivery to homeless people in mining communities, indeed any nonmetropolitan area, we do need to appreciate the factors which cause homelessness in these communities as well as the factors which help to reduce homelessness and promote social participation and community development.

Implications for research, social policy and planning
Given the uncertainty facing mining communities there is an urgent need to assess the impact the mining industry and the decade long boom has had on homelessness in regional Australian communities. There is also a need to consider the impact of the current mining downturn on homelessness in mining communities. There is little doubt that homelessness has become a feature of mining communities in quite unique ways. The specific characteristics of homelessness in mining communities need to be recognised to contrast homelessness in mining communities with homelessness in other Australian communities and regions to design appropriate housing, support and broader social policy responses. Further dialogue between all levels of Government and Industry will be critical to clarify roles in relation to addressing the challenges of homelessness in mining communities.
The urgency has arisen as a result of the systemic neglect of properly planning for social policy in mining communities. A common perception is that the mining boom has more positively impacted business and companies and citizens residing in the large metropolitan cities of Australia in contrast to smaller regional and rural communities who directly support the mining industry. The benefits of the boom have been viewed as disproportionately advantaging cities at the expense of regional and rural mining communities that have provided housing for workers and their families and vital services such as roads, hospitals and schools. This was dramatically captured in the title of the Australian Government Standing Committee on Regional Australia's Report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013) Cancer of the Bush or Salvation of our Cities examining the impacts of FIFO and DIDO workforce arrangements on regional communities. With the use of such remarkable language which pits communities against each other, it is easy to form the impression that the future of regional and rural mining communities is at odds with other regions in Australia. In fact there is some evidence from recent elections throughout Australia, that this division has resonated with the voting public who have to some extent shifted their support to political parties which explicitly champion the return of profits to regions and promote regional communities as being attractive for young families.
The National Party in Western Australia achieved political success with the implementation since 2008 of its Royalties for Regions policy which has guaranteed 25% of Western Australia's mining and petroleum royalties to be retained for regional infrastructure investment (Brown & Bellamy, 2010

Conclusion
Homelessness in Australian mining communities is not well understood. The evidence base is weak and policy addressing homelessness in these communities is under-developed. Moreover, much of the traditional, orthodox understanding of homelessness, which has emerged from large urban communities, appears inadequate when applied to the experiences of homeless people in mining communities. Homelessness in mining communities was not a topic of public interest during the years of the mining boom and this lack of recognition does support the argument that during the mining boom years, homelessness was widely viewed as an unfortunate but necessary down payment for the huge mining wealth which was generated and perceived to be in the greater interests of Australian economy and society. The downturn in mining over the last three years has seen has seen a shift in Australia's fortunes. This shift makes us reconsider our view of homelessness and ultimately how we decide to respond to the challenges of homelessness throughout Australia particularly in mining regions and other non-metropolitan areas.
Homelessness in mining communities needs to be seen in the context of the neoliberalist paradigm which characterises Australia's social policy settings and welfare system. The extent to which homelessness will be allowed to be constructed as an inevitable product of this hostile environment to collectivist social welfare approaches and long term community planning will be a major point of contention during social and political debates taking place in the current period of mining downturn. This will in turn inform preparedness to address homelessness in mining communities in the future irrespective of the incredible highs and lows associated with the mining boom and downturn cycle.
Warburton, J., Shapiro, M., Buckley, A., & van Gellecum, Y. (2004). A nice thing to do but is it critical for business? Corporate responsibility and Australian business. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(2), 117-127. projects that focus on contemporary issues in rural and remote practice.